Censoring Science Won’t Make Us Any Safer In the article “Censoring Science Won’t Make Us Any Safer,” Laura K. Donohue writes the increased governmental restrictions on science could be harmful to the human race.about Throughout the article she makes many points that are very persuasive to those who easily overlook the logical fallacies, and over dramatization. Donohue shows many signs of using the scare tactic, as well as not using actual sources to back her argument.
In the article Donohoe claimed that censoring science slows scientific advancement. Keeping secrets and failing to share information and materials could put the United States in danger and unable to protect citizens from dangerous materials (Marshall). The United States government
…show more content…
The scare tactic is used to strike fear in the reader in order to scare them away from the other side of the argument. One of the first arguments the author made in the essay is when Donohue talks about the possibility of terrorist having access to poison and they could easily contaminate innocent civilians. The scare tactic is used frequently in order to scare people onto a side of an argument. This is a very effective way to get people on your side, however, more times than not, the argument will come off a lot worse than it actually …show more content…
The author does not use any factual evidence that is supported by a strong source. Without using a source it is hard to believe the author is telling a true story or has evidence. She automatically assumes that these terrorists have the labs, technology, and money needed in order to get a hold of these dangerous substances, as well as they have enough power and resources to get them out to a wide majority of people. She does all of this without using any evidence that this is an actually concern, only an idea or possibility this could be going on.
She then goes on to talk about a museum where kids are allowed to do online experiments with molecular biology as if this fake simulation is on the same severity level as scientists not having the information needed to protect us from these substances. It is very possible the test tube the child is emailed to look at could not be accurate, only to be an example. It is very possible the website used to see the test tubes uses the same test tube for everyone since the majority of people will not know the difference or if it is
Clay Dillow’s “To Catch a Bombmaker” was published by Popular Science in October 2015. This article educated the reader about the FBI’s Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center— a key aspect in the fight against terrorism. Dillow focused on ethos and logos to strengthen the validation of his claim concerning the importance of the TEDAC and was successful in persuading the reader to believe in its significance as well. He used expert quotes from FBI agents to give the article credibility; In addition, he presented statistical data in a clear and concise manner and gave many factual cases in which the TEDAC facilitated the government in their pursuit of terrorist and bomb makers. As proven by Dillow in “How to Catch a Bombmaker,” the Terrorist
Scientific research is constantly being battled in politics. The point of communication in science is to try and get across a proven theory to the public. Under the scrutiny of political agendas, these efforts face many hurdles. Informing the public of climate changes has had a positive impact on the acceptance of science. There are several techniques the scientific community communicates their findings to the public.
This can take a turn for the worse: if scientists have to have their work follow what politics, religions, and people believe, we might limit what science stands for. Religion and politics should never have control over science, instead they should use science to help explain their own goals. Science should be used as a way to challenge old beliefs and help clear out fact from fiction. At the same time though, science should challenge itself so it can stay true to its main point of challenging old dogmas, as Carl Sagan said in his article.
Furthermore, to think that science is immune to the power establishment, one must assume that it is in no way affected by government or companies with money to spend. This, like the assumption that science is neutral, is also incorrect. In order for a scientist to be funded in his research, he must submit proposals to those power establishments that have money. These powerful companies and governments will only fund those projects they deem important to their interests and goals. In this way, science is extremely political in its effort to obtain money and support because it must please those power establishments who are, by nature, political.
Aldridge, Alexandra. The Scientific World View in Dystopia. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, 1984.
Schep, L, Temple, W. & Beasley, M. (2009). Racin as a weapon of mass terror-separating fact
Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruskiewicz. New York: St. Martins, 1997, 230-235. Thomas, Lewis "The Hazards of Science" The Presence of Others. Comp. Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruskiewicz.
Teachers suspended, radio and television personalities fired, authors disinvited to speaking events, all because their words, opinions or shows did not agree with what a handful of people consider appropriate. One would think these types of situations regarding censorship happened decades ago, not in a time now, where people pride themselves on having an open-mind and the ability of forward thinking. However, censorship still prevails in America today, and not only censorship of pornography or violence on television, but it seeps into our textbooks and classrooms too, all in the name of protecting the children.
Most scientists want to be able to share their data. Scientists are autonomous by nature. Begelman (1968) refutes an argument made by I. L. Horowitz, a scientist who believes that the government is in “gross violations of the autonomous nature of science”. Begelman believes, however, that there is a system of checks and balances in the government regulation system, and that this system is in place to protect citizens.... ...
Arthur L. Caplan, in his news article, “Distinguishing Science from Nonsense,” warns the audience about the uncertain economic future of the United States of America due to the abandonment of science within society. Further, Caplan’s purpose is to inform the audience how the dwindling importance of science in children is not only due to schools, but also due to American culture. Therefore, Caplan uses a combination of rhetorical devices to not only warn and inform the public about the importance of science, but to also engage them to an extent that persuades the audience to take action.
Broyles, Janell. Chemical and Biological Weapons in a Post-9/11 World. New York: Rosen Pub. Group, 2005. Print.
The author’s first reasoning to help support his claim was “Censorship can also protect us from the circulation of dangerous information.” Another reasoning the author had stated was “It is also wrong for information that is false or misleading to be easily available for anyone to find.” The author gives logical reasoning to support his claim, but does not give sufficient support. Not only does the author give insufficient support, but he also doesn’t organize the passage clearly, so that the reader can understand his reasoning clearly.
...om society. Although Bishop makes no excuses for the shortcomings of science and academia, he delivers an ominous message to those who would attack the scientific community: Science is the future. Learn to embrace it or be left behind.
The Fear of Science To live in the today's world is to be surrounded by the products of science. For it is science that gave our society color television, the bottle of aspirin, and the polyester shirt. Thus, science has greatly enhanced our society; yet, our society is still afraid of the effects of science. This fear of science can be traced back to the nineteenth century, where scientists had to be secretive in experimenting with science. Although science did wonders in the nineteenth century, many people feared science and its effects because of the uncertainty of the results of science.
In modern society, science and technology have become integrated into everyday life to a greater extent than ever before; consequently, it is no longer possible for science and society to be viewed as two separate entities which seldom converge (Meyer 240, LaFollette 7). This mutual inclusiveness fosters dependence, yet, because of the vast amounts of scientific data now available, it is increasingly difficult for individuals to have personal knowledge and understanding of the sciences and technologies which play such significant roles in their lives. However, it is not customary for scientists to communicate research discoveries directly to the public. Instead, this substantial responsibility is placed in the hands of the journalistic community, yet unfortunately there are many obstacles impeding good science journalism (Murcott and Williams 152). In fact, researcher Davida Charney posits that “[t]he very notions of accuracy and newsworthiness are at the heart of the conflict between scientists and journalists” (216). So what really are the roles and responsibilities of science journalists, and what are some of the subsequent incompatible values dividing the two communities? In my paper, I will argue that the public communication of science is more challenging than other forms of journalism due to the underlying conflict inherent to the relationship between scientists and journalists. I will examine two specific issues which hinder the accurate communication of scientific information; the sensationalism and commercialization of science which is promoted by science journalists, and the inaccessibility of the scientific community. Finally, I will consider some implications of poor science communication, and conc...